3 ms·
I think the gist of your sentiment is that barriers to entry aren't necessarily bad. I agree. I disagree that dscm (as a satisfied fossil user, I refuse to call
by bch 12y ago
I think the gist of your sentiment is that barriers to entry aren't necessarily bad. I agree. I disagree that dscm (as a satisfied fossil user, I refuse to call these general concepts "git concepts") is the way to describe it though. I feel a closer analogy (from experience) is papering over horrible app performance by throwing up a proxy like varnish. You've still got garbage under the hood.
- dkarl 12y agoI don't mean to agree with people who resist this type of change, just to explain how it looks from their point of view. A CVS user sees branching and merging as a difficult, painful, time-consuming things to be avoided, so they're horrified if you tell them they're going to be branching and merging on a daily basis. They aren't right — generalizing from their CVS experience has given them a mistaken idea of what using git (or fossil) is like — but it's easy to understand why they're afraid. Also, ironically and unfortunately, the fact that a git (or fossil) advocate is enthusiastic about the ease of branching and merging is likely to make the CVS user think they are crazy, since you'd have to be crazy to love branching and merging in CVS.